It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

page: 402
377
<< 399  400  401    403  404  405 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Looks pretty well sunlit in that pic Nat..
The sun does not just shine on the moon...
Yeah, that's what I'm saying. You have sunlight going through the gases and highlighting them, with the blackness of space behind it providing great contrast. On the surface of the moon, you have the bright sunlit landscape in the background, providing far less contrast. It's like trying to see the proverbial polar bear in a snowstorm.




posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by nataylor
 


Ohh OK...
I'd have to watch the LM ascent again but doesn't the camera pan and at times show the LM against the blackness of space.??
Maybe someone could just point to the pages where this has undoubtedly been discussed before.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Ohh OK...
I'd have to watch the LM ascent again but doesn't the camera pan and at times show the LM against the blackness of space.??
In JW's video the "plume" is just a quick burst when the engine ignites. So even though the camera tracks the LM upwards, any visible expulsion of propellant is long gone.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 





NOT to single you out, but in another post I read after this one I'm responding to, with your "list"....again, those are ALL easily explained, when the person asking has the ability to comprehend the basic sciences....and is NOT prone to the rampant mis-information spewed by JW, his "mentor" Ralph Rene', and all the rest of them.


'All' easily explained... right. Well done. You're work here is done... how wrong I was. I bow down to your superior knowledge.

You blinkered individual.

Tell me please then why the three apollo astronauts at their first press conference after first 'moon' mission look so depressed... I look forward to your 'easy to explain' answer.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 



Tell me please then why the three apollo astronauts at their first press conference after first 'moon' mission look so depressed... I look forward to your 'easy to explain' answer.


Including the time spent in space, they had been in solitary confinement for a month. The first ten days were one of the most stressful experiences imaginable. One wrong decision, one random encounter with a meteoroid or a burst of radiation from the Sun and they would have died an excruciating death. How do you imagine you would feel if you had risked your life like that and then had to wait 21 days before you could step outside and see the wide blue sky?

Oh, and manmental, don't take this personally, it is directed at FoosM:



And what about these "tourists" just standing around? They've supposedly traveled thousands of miles to see this world famous historic landmark and they're not even looking at it!!! They should be grinning from ear to ear as they gaze at it in awe.



Projection of fantasized emotions onto others. How many times have Moon Hoax propagandists argued that the astronauts weren't behaving the way they should have. They should have been grinning from ear to ear instead of looking exhausted. They should have brought a telescope. They should have done nothing but take pictures of the Earth instead of the Moon.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by nekomata111
Ok, let's say we didn't land in the moon, so what changes in our daily lives and abroad?
edit on 28-3-2011 by nekomata111 because: typo


Just about EVERYTHING.

Scientific hegemony will be splintered and broken, which will release an avalanche of new theories thus jump starting a new possible sustainable space race.
Trust & confidence in government would be eroded (in a good way).
The masses (especially in the US) will reevaluate their positions in life, the taxes they pay, their moral compasses.



I still think we landed in moon, maybe not in 69 but sure later, but, what they found in the moon was so shocking and disturbing that they needed to cover the images and movies, producing those artifacts that scream "FAKE"...



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 


Yes.


'All' easily explained... right. Well done. You're work here is done... how wrong I was. I bow down to your superior knowledge.


Over 400 pages, now. BUT, your approximately "20 questions" all have been answered, within this thread. OR, if not sufficiently here, then in any of the other several others that destroy the Apollo "hoax" nonsense.

In fact, your "questions" are quite old....and oft repeated, yet again I just noticed from another horribly ignorant person on YouTube. The same re-treads from the same old debunked films, such as the one by Bart Sibrel.

I rather think that addressing each and every one is somewhat contrary to the point of this thread. Although, it has woven and wended its way all over the map, by now. I shudder to suggest this, but after a careful search and review of the OTHER threads, then IF you are still unsatisfied, you are free to start one of your own, of course.

I'd suggest a very thorough research session (or several) first, though. No sense in embarrassing yourself unnecessarily.

Some very selective videos on YouTube are quite well done. Unfortunately, the place is awash in a torrent of abject ignorance, for the most part. Sifting through the muck to find the gems, can be tiresome.

A short list of resources:

Start here, as Phil Plait explains the flaws in that crap show that aired on Fox ten years ago....

Also Phil Plait, he has many links that both support and refute the "hoax" claims

( Check out the Russian site that he says confirms NASA DID GO! I haven't translated it yet, to go through it, so cannot say how good (or bad) it is )...

I really like the "Moon Base Clavius" site too, by Jay WIndley:

www.xmission.com...


Robert A. Braeunig's site:

www.braeunig.us...


The Guardian newspaper, from the UK:

www.guardian.co.uk...



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by manmental
Hey Exponant,

The areas that interest me the most:

Hey,
Sorry my response has taken a couple of days, I have been a little swamped with work. It seems that your questions can be broken up into categories like so:

1. Moon surface conditions and physics
  • No dust on lander feet.
  • No blast crater.
  • No dust dispersal tracks visible around stones under the lander booster (if dust blew way and stones remained we should see tracks showed this movement of materail, there are none.)
  • The laughable videos where astronauts magically levitate back into a standing position, from their knees.


2. Space conditions and physics

  • The problems with van allen belts and thickness of shielding bearing in mind many solar falres occured during missions.
  • The fact that IMAX film needs shielding when in earths orbit yet all apollo films came back fine.
  • The lack of any hubble/ telescop photos of the Lander on the moon post Apollo.
  • The very very strange video showing astronauts filming earth in their blacked out capsule... and seemingly reharsing a technique to fake a further distance to the earth, This is just weird.


3. General suspicion
  • The fact that no-one has been close to going back.
  • Jarrah's findings that NASA could have sent data back to earth via a lunar satellite... similar to how NASA trained the command cenntre using a satellite in earths orbit.
  • The incredible success rate of the missions compared to the many failures of shuttle missions.
  • The fact NASA says they need years to have technology to go back to moon.
  • The cold war would have been a reason to fake the missions, and NASA was running simulations, and so the technology to make it work has been proved.
  • Many strange anomalies with photos, shadows, lunar landscape, earth positions, sun positions... and myserious disappearing wands during a jump into a vehicle.
  • The discrepencies in the apollo astronauts recollection about the star's visibility or lack of.
  • The very glum Apollo press conference after first moon mission... I've never seen three heroes so look so depressed and lonely. Demons going on in their minds it seems to me.
  • The fact that NASA has form with white-lies, doctoring photos and keeping secrets.
  • The dutch 'moon rock' that turned out to be fossilised wood.


There's nothing I can do to address any of the questions in the 'general suspicion' category, as many of them don't have answers, and are more speculation than direct questions. Of course it's possible NASA could have used a satellite in lunar orbit to fake transmissions, but not only would it be extremely difficult, there's just no evidence for it. It's an inference from the fact that there definitely were human voices being transmitted from a path which matches with the Apollo trajectory.

The other two categories however contain answers that often already exist in this thread. While you won't like me saying this, weedwhacker is right in that these questions have all been extensively investigated and good answers already exist.

I would like to focus on a question at a time, and so I want to start weeding out the weakest from my perspective. The 'blast crater' argument for example. Most of the evidence for the idea that there should be a blast crater comes from NASA. If NASA believed it would happen, and they faked the moon landing, why did they not just blast out a crater with the engine?.

They definitely had the engines, they're on display in museums and it would be suicidal for a conspiracy not to get real engines with the right powers produced, so why wouldn't they either fire the engine into the regolith simulant and use that as the landing crater? It makes no sense to me that NASA incorrectly predicting something is used as evidence of a conspiracy.

I also have to address the 'laughable levitate video' here. You can't stand up when you're on your knees? I think this was mentioned earlier in the thread, but ignoring the fact that they had 1/6th gravity, I can stand up from being on my knees with just a slight rock backward! I'm not exactly super athletic, so I don't get how this video is supposed to be 'laughable'.

Let me know what you think, we'll try and stay on one topic as much as possible because it's easy to get sidetracked (as this thread proves)



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   
I really appreciate Nat's responses, they are not littered with insults, just straight answers. Much can be learned with this type of debate


Im actually curious about something:


Originally posted by nataylor





I now want to present the following...

a plume:


www.hq.nasa.gov...

The S-IVB stage vents propellant during transposition and docking





A couple problems. The excess fuel on the S-IVB was vented in an unreacted state. In other words, the engine is not firing. And the S-IVB used liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen fuel, not a hypergolic propellant.



It has to do with the fact you stated that this was not a firing, but a venting of fuel.
How did you determine that?

Also, who commanded the S-IVB to vent? Was it remote controlled? Where are they astronauts?

Third, why would they risk releasing fuel during a docking maneuver?

And finally, I noticed the LM is attached to the S-IVB? Where, in terms of location, in the mission are they then?
What phase is this event occurring?



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

I would like to focus on a question at a time, and so I want to start weeding out the weakest from my perspective. The 'blast crater' argument for example. Most of the evidence for the idea that there should be a blast crater comes from NASA. If NASA believed it would happen, and they faked the moon landing, why did they not just blast out a crater with the engine?.

They definitely had the engines, they're on display in museums and it would be suicidal for a conspiracy not to get real engines with the right powers produced, so why wouldn't they either fire the engine into the regolith simulant and use that as the landing crater? It makes no sense to me that NASA incorrectly predicting something is used as evidence of a conspiracy.


Its like the stars issue, by trying to recreate it, it would generate more questions and problems.
They had to create an environment that the astronauts could "seemingly" safely walk on.
That means, they couldn't have astronauts knee deep in lunar dust.

So one issue determined the other.
If they made a crater, what size would it be?
Which would lead to, why didnt the LM fall into it?
And to independent scientists working out the size of the crater, with the type and amount of lunar dust there was on the surface of the moon.
You would also have to show damage to the LM's landing gear which would have been obviously sandblasted.
etc.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Its like the stars issue, by trying to recreate it, it would generate more questions and problems.
They had to create an environment that the astronauts could "seemingly" safely walk on.
That means, they couldn't have astronauts knee deep in lunar dust.

I don't get why this is a problem, they have the engine, they have the terrain, they have a regolith simulant.

Fire engine into simulant, pretend that it landed. How difficult could it be?


And to independent scientists working out the size of the crater, with the type and amount of lunar dust there was on the surface of the moon.

Any links?



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Its like the stars issue, by trying to recreate it, it would generate more questions and problems.
They had to create an environment that the astronauts could "seemingly" safely walk on.
That means, they couldn't have astronauts knee deep in lunar dust.


Are we back to the "stars issue" again? There are no stars in the photographs because they were too dim compared to the lunar surface. As for the lunar dust question, Surveyor did not sink into the dust either. The Russian Lunakhods did not sink into the dust, and when the Chinese send their lander up, it wan't sink into the dust either.



So one issue determined the other.
If they made a crater, what size would it be?
Which would lead to, why didnt the LM fall into it?


If they were faking it, they could do anything they want.


And to independent scientists working out the size of the crater, with the type and amount of lunar dust there was on the surface of the moon.


But they would be in on it, wouldn't they?


You would also have to show damage to the LM's landing gear which would have been obviously sandblasted.


No, it wouldn't because the dust wouldn't billow, it would be displaced laterally. We've been through all this before. [Bangs head on keyboard in frustration] hgkj;gvg;hbnlugfvghjgbukjgvjhgkjhhgjfhgswrf/lkjo;lkll



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by nekomata111

I still think we landed in moon, maybe not in 69 but sure later, but, what they found in the moon was so shocking and disturbing that they needed to cover the images and movies, producing those artifacts that scream "FAKE"...


Interesting.
Do you happen to have a particular photo or video that you think was faked?
And, is there a particular reason why you want to hold onto the belief that man went to the moon?



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by FoosM
Its like the stars issue, by trying to recreate it, it would generate more questions and problems.
They had to create an environment that the astronauts could "seemingly" safely walk on.
That means, they couldn't have astronauts knee deep in lunar dust.

I don't get why this is a problem, they have the engine, they have the terrain, they have a regolith simulant.

Fire engine into simulant, pretend that it landed. How difficult could it be?



I just explained, how big of a crater would they want to make?





And to independent scientists working out the size of the crater, with the type and amount of lunar dust there was on the surface of the moon.

Any links?



Links to what?
edit on 29-3-2011 by FoosM because: quote

edit on 29-3-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
It has to do with the fact you stated that this was not a firing, but a venting of fuel.
How did you determine that?


And finally, I noticed the LM is attached to the S-IVB? Where, in terms of location, in the mission are they then?
What phase is this event occurring?

The quote provided with the image details what stage of the mission they were on: en.wikipedia.org...


Also, who commanded the S-IVB to vent? Was it remote controlled? Where are they astronauts?

It is automatic, based on the pressure of the fuel increasing as it heats


Third, why would they risk releasing fuel during a docking maneuver?

The dump is symmetric, to eliminate interference.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
I just explained, how big of a crater would they want to make?

They wouldn't want any particular size, they have the engine and the surface, the size of the crater is immaterial. If it creates a tiny crater, then that's legitimate, if it creates a huge one, then that's legitimate.

If it created such a huge crater that it was unsafe or impossible, then it would also have done that for real, which is a dead giveaway. Why do you think they would be so stupid?


Links to what?

Independent scientists disagreeing with the depth of dust on the moon or similar.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

It has to do with the fact you stated that this was not a firing, but a venting of fuel.
How did you determine that?


Well, the caption reads "The S-IVB stage vents propellant during transposition and docking." And if you read the transcripts, you'll see they mention it:


00 03 24 54 CC For your information, at 3 plus 34:24, a nonpropulsive vent in the booster will be sequenced open. We don't expect to see much from it. Over.

00 03 25 06 CDR Say that again, please.

00 03 25 08 CC At 3 plus 34:24, a nonpropulsive vent in the booster will be sequenced open. Over.

...

00 03 31 16 CC Roger. A reminder. You have about 3 minutes until that vent will come open. Keep an eye on that
booster when that happens.

00 03 31 23 CMP Okay. How about you give me a mark on that beauty?

00 03 31 25 CC Will do.

00 03 33 56 CC Stu, this is Houston. That vent is due in 30 seconds.

00 03 34 00 CMP Okay.

00 03 34 15 CC 10 seconds.

00 03 34 24 CC Ready -

00 03 34 25 CC MARK. It should be on now.

00 03 34 27 CMP Man, it's beautiful.



Originally posted by FoosM
Also, who commanded the S-IVB to vent? Was it remote controlled? Where are they astronauts?
In the transcripts, they mention it was "sequenced open," meaning it was part of the pre-programmed automated sequence for the S-IVB stage.


Originally posted by FoosM
Third, why would they risk releasing fuel during a docking maneuver?

Apollo 14 was having trouble docking with the LM. At this point, they should have already docked and separated.



Originally posted by FoosM
And finally, I noticed the LM is attached to the S-IVB? Where, in terms of location, in the mission are they then?
What phase is this event occurring?


As you can see from the transcripts, this is about 3 hours and 34 minutes into the mission. This was the coast part of the mission, after the S-IVB had fired the trans-lunar injection burn. Their range would be in the neighborhood of 19,000 km.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001

Are we back to the "stars issue" again? There are no stars in the photographs because they were too dim compared to the lunar surface.


Doesnt explain why they didnt bother to take photos of the stars.
Which has been our main point. And to answer your question. No.




As for the lunar dust question, Surveyor did not sink into the dust either. The Russian Lunakhods did not sink into the dust, and when the Chinese send their lander up, it wan't sink into the dust either.


I think there was a significant size, weight, design difference.



If they were faking it, they could do anything they want.


No they couldn't, even with their huge budget, special effects had its limitations.






And to independent scientists working out the size of the crater, with the type and amount of lunar dust there was on the surface of the moon.


But they would be in on it, wouldn't they?



Why would they be?
I think you misunderstood my me.






You would also have to show damage to the LM's landing gear which would have been obviously sandblasted.


No, it wouldn't because the dust wouldn't billow, it would be displaced laterally. We've been through all this before. [Bangs head on keyboard in frustration] hgkj;gvg;hbnlugfvghjgbukjgvjhgkjhhgjfhgswrf/lkjo;lkll



Who said anything about billowing?
It has nothing to do with billowing, it has to do with regolith ejecting out of a growing hole.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by manmental
reply to post by weedwhacker
 





NOT to single you out, but in another post I read after this one I'm responding to, with your "list"....again, those are ALL easily explained, when the person asking has the ability to comprehend the basic sciences....and is NOT prone to the rampant mis-information spewed by JW, his "mentor" Ralph Rene', and all the rest of them.


'All' easily explained... right. Well done. You're work here is done... how wrong I was. I bow down to your superior knowledge.

You blinkered individual.

Tell me please then why the three apollo astronauts at their first press conference after first 'moon' mission look so depressed... I look forward to your 'easy to explain' answer.


Depressed? That's your opinion. What were you expecting? For them to jump up and do a song & dance routine? A laser show?

These men are test pilots and scientists, not TV anchormen or entertainers.

It's called being exhausted and overwhelmed. It's also called being professional. They had just completed one of the greatest feats in mankind's history.... and I think the 21 days in quarantine had something to do with it as well.
It wasn't like they got out of the capsule and went right from the USS Hornet to the press conference....

I have watched many, many of Jarrah White's videos. He provides speculative opinions, nothing more. He does very little to back up his claims with actual science. And he has been debunked more times than I can count.

Don't you think it's a bit strange that one completely unqualified kid in Oz with a youtube account and an axe to grind thinks he knows more than the scientific community of the entire world?

Here's the entire press conference: (not just a few clips taken out of context by some conspiracy loon)
www.youtube.com...



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor


Originally posted by FoosM
And finally, I noticed the LM is attached to the S-IVB? Where, in terms of location, in the mission are they then?
What phase is this event occurring?


As you can see from the transcripts, this is about 3 hours and 34 minutes into the mission. This was the coast part of the mission, after the S-IVB had fired the trans-lunar injection burn. Their range would be in the neighborhood of 19,000 km.


Ok, that is what I thought as well, but here is why I was initially confused thinking it was a firing for docking:


Apollo 14, Magazine L

Images AS14-72-10000 to AS14-72-9999


www.lpi.usra.edu...


The pictures of the moon come first!

How is that possible?
The photos are supposed to go in order!
Instead of the moon, it should have been photos of the Earth.

Photos AS14-72-10000 to AS14-72-10030 for all intent and purposes are pictures from a craft in orbit. When you click on one, they will even give Latitude / Longitude
For example:
www.lpi.usra.edu...


Latitude / Longitude: 3° S / 88° E


And look how distant the Earth is in the photos.
Is that 20,000 km or more?

Just to make sure I was understanding this correctly, I looked at two other missions
to see what their photo sequences looked like:

Apollo 11


Apollo 15


Look at the size of the Earth!


How do you explain this then?



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 399  400  401    403  404  405 >>

log in

join